Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, consistent with description of creating a case. The description adds context about what a CASO is and that it unlocks automation, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. No contradictions, but limited additional behavioral transparency beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and contextual details. No wasted words, but the second sentence is somewhat long. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains core concept and required fields but not optional parameters or return value. The tool is moderately complex and missing explanations for many fields, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains titulo is required and the customer_id/customer_nome relationship, but leaves 8 of 10 parameters undocumented (polo, objeto, tag_ids, qualificacao, data_abertura, responsavel_id, valor_envolvido). Partial coverage with no enums or additional meaning for most parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates a new extrajudicial/consultative case in Astrea, distinguishes it from judicial process by noting no CNJ/tribunal, and lists specific use cases (consultoria, contratos, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from sibling astrea_processo_criar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use (extrajudicial/consultative) and when not (for judicial process use astrea_processo_criar). Also specifies required fields (titulo and either customer_id or customer_nome). Provides clear context and alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.